Oh no, haha. Ah well that’s to be expected. Still cool that it’s being shown here though
2 Likes
Just bought 2 tickets. There is a showing in Amsterdam, going with my son and hoping to get him off of the Marvel universe.
2 Likes
You’re doing the right thing 
. It’s a dads job to introduce their children to good films.
2 Likes
Last night: Joker: Folie à Deux (Phillips, 2024)
It’s been awhile but we’re finally catching up with Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), last seen shooting a talk show host dead on live TV whilst in character as the clown-faced “Joker”, and becoming the focal point of increasing civil unrest and division between the Haves and the Have Nots in Gotham City as a consequence. Now he’s in Arkham Asylum, more disheveled and broken than ever, awaiting a trial which will determine whether he’s a schizophrenic who didn’t know what he was doing when he killed five people (the State aren’t yet aware that he also smothered his mother with a pillow) and will subsequently see out his days in a hospital, or whether he knew exactly who he was and what he was doing, and will soon be sat in Old Sparky for his misdeeds, ridin’ the lightnin’.
Arthur is permitted to join a singing therapy class at the asylum. There, he meets Harleen Quinzell (Lady Gaga). She’s an outcast, like him. She’s from the same neighborhood, she was mistreated by her parents just as Arthur was. She killed her dad, just as Arthur killed his mum. And she is utterly smitten with Joker.
Well, under the restricted, hostile and largely isolated circumstances in which Arthur exists, it’s not long at all before he’s reciprocating Harleen’s feelings. She’s the music in his soul and he’s the music in hers.
There’s a dilemma. Harleen - Lee - wants him to embrace his Joker alter-ego. Joker is erudite, charming, menacing, deadly, and a figure of great awe and fear for thousands in the city. She’s dedicated to the idea that there’s nothing Arthur can’t achieve, when he’s Joker. His lawyer (Catherine Keener), however, is building Arthur’s entire case around the idea that Arthur’s responsibility for his actions is diminished because he’s a schizophrenic, forced to relinquish control to this distinctly “other” persona. One way lies love. One way lies life. But on whom can Arthur count? Harleen feels for all the world like the only person on Earth who’s ever truly understood him, and she’s looking increasingly like she might be his eternal soulmate to boot; his counsel however is trying desperately to save his life, and she’s pretty adamant that, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, Harleen is stringing Arthur along with a web of lies. Who is she, really? More pertinently: Who is Arthur, really? What does he want? It might be easier to think if he wasn’t palming his meds, but then again Lee seems to think it’ll be easier for him to think without them. Oh boy. At times like this, all you can really do is sing…
And sing, they do. Arthur sings. Harleen sings. They sing to themselves, to one another, in duet to imagined audiences. Arthur sings to his fellow inmates and he even sings to the courtroom in which his life hangs by a thread. Now, director Todd Phillips has gone to great lengths to explain that, no, Joker: Folie à Deux is NOT a musical because, in musicals, an entire scene will halt inexplicably whilst everybody just stops their lives for a choreographed number out of the clear blue sky, whereas in this film the songs are either entirely in Arthur’s or in Harleen’s heads, or the characters are singing to each other as a means of conveying feelings and emotions that they can’t convey verbally. And, well, it’s true that the songs are indeed utilised in that manner. But, Todd, if it looks like a lemon, smells like a lemon and tastes like a lemon, it’s probably a lemon. Whatever the justification for their existence, there are nevertheless about a dozen classic show tunes presented here, in full and in a variety of ways, from our anti-protagonist singing down the phone to his paramour’s answerphone all the way up to fully-blown stage numbers with props, choreography and costumes. Mr. Phillips: It’s a bloody musical.
Now. take all the musical numbers away and what you have here, fundamentally, is a courtroom drama. Sure, there are a few scenes illustrating Arthur’s life and standing within the asylum, where guards and inmates alike seem to veer between tolerating him as a figure of ridicule, and kicking the shit out him (Brendan Gleeson particularly excels as an alternately jovial/vicious asylum guard). Sure, the movie opens with a terrific animated Looney Toons pastiche which paints the murder of talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro) in the first movie definitively as the act of a distinct alternate persona of Arthur’s (here, Joker is literally Arthur’s shadow, acting independently and against Arthur’s best interests). And sure, there’s a fair bit of somewhat unexpected action at the movie’s end which I’ll touch upon but not reveal. But, mostly, it’s Arthur preparing for trial, and then standing trial; caught all the while 'twixt the pragmatism of his lawyer, and the dark fantasy presented by his devoted new protégé.
Is that enough? Well, I guess that would depend on your tolerance for courtroom dramas but, if you’re okay with those, Joker: Folie à Deux provides the goods. I mean it kind-of clips the wings of our principals who, good as they are, have less non-musical things to do than if it had been a livelier type of picture. But, still. It’s not a major quibble for me. I don’t mind a courtroom drama from time to time.
Here’s my major quibble, and I suspect it might be that of a fair few others too. See, you CAN’T just take all the musical numbers away. And I don’t especially care for musicals generally (there are exceptions and I hope that, one day, this becomes an exception too). And I’m not keen at all on the creaky old song choices. I mean, look: I don’t mind the concept of musical numbers as a means to illustrate Arthur’s state of mind. Or Harley’s. But that could have been achieved with two or three numbers. A dozen numbers felt imho entirely unnecessary UNLESS the director was making a musical; which, he has publicly insisted, he wasn’t. So why do it? Because it’s a bold and unique slant on a superhero (or at least superhero-adjacent) movie? Well, that it is, for sure. And I applaud the audacity.
And, since we’re at it, I applaud the craft, too; Joaquin Phoenix is good in everything he does and that’s no different here (although he’s not as good here as he was in the first film. And Lady Gaga is excellent, more so when she’s not singing than when she is. Her portrayal of Harleen “Lee” Quinzell is unhinged but not comically so as is more typical for the character; there’s a cynicism to her, and a manipulative streak just beneath it all, out of reach. Ms. Gaga is not the most attractive woman on Earth - I would venture that she’s unconventionally pretty - but her downbeat take on this usually most irritatingly over-demonstrative of characters is, nonetheless, queasily magnetic. Hypnotic, even. It’s hard not to watch every movement of her face.
But, as bold as it may be, is it what the film’s demographic wanted from a Joker sequel? Is it what I wanted? I don’t know yet. Often, when I can’t tell if I love something or hate it, that’s usually a sign that, ultimately, I love it. But I’m picturing myself in a few months’ time, popping the Blu-ray of Joker: Folie à Deux into the player, and settling down to a second viewing. Knowing all those songs are coming. Right now, that’s not a scenario I’m anticipating with any relish.
So, there we are, pretty much. Joker: Folie à Deux. Beautifully crafted from top to bottom with the wonderfully grim retro aesthetic of the first movie continuing into this one and servicing a heavyweight cast in fantastic form; but with not quite enough going on if you don’t like courtroom dramas, and way too many song & dance interludes for those who don’t care for musicals.
It’s got a cracking ending, though.
Does it? Well I think so, but just as many will hate the ending as love it, I suspect. Really can’t elaborate upon that until we’re all on the same page but, yes, it hit the mark for me, even if elements of the rest of the film didn’t. That’s entertainment!
4 Likes
A wonderful review of ‘Joker 2’, Asa…very informative. I am hoping to go and see it at my local cinema next week.
1 Like
Honestly, I don’t know what people expected. They were told it was a musical beforehand. Joker (2019) was basically a taxi driver remake without the maturity, subtlety and depth, and with a more kid-friendly style to appeal to young modern day audiences. It was creatively bankrupt, but audiences loved it because the 70s were a long time ago and most people who saw it didn’t watch the films it steals from, it’s appeal was similar to that of a Tarantino film (although not nearly as good). If anything, the sequel should be applauded for at least trying something different within modern hollywood, even if the writing is shit as well.
1 Like
I like both Joker films, and I’m not surprised that the 2nd one will not be as successful as the first one (which was an astonishing surprise success), and I think its success had nothing to do with some Taxi Driver similarities, and I don’t think that the first one is a kid friendly film.
And Joker 2 is not a musical, but a film with a few musical interludes. Could very well be a film which will grow with further viewings.
But it was, as so many others nowadays, another overlong film which would have probably benefitted from a shorter runtime and a more compacted story telling.
It is 100% one of those R rated films targeting a young audience, similar to the deadpool films. Rather than being an actual mature film, it’s what young teenagers think a mature film is like… it’s designed to create the perception of maturity for young audiences without any actual maturity. It’s a dark drama, but it insists on having no depth and spoon-feeding everything to the viewer like they’re 12. This is so it can be easily understood, making it more appealing and enjoyable for a young audience. Kids won’t enjoy watching taxi driver, but they will enjoy watching joker because depth and subtlety is boring to kids, and joker intentionally has none of that.
Just like how the young deadpool audiences think deadpool is adult comedy, when it’s not. It’s R-rated comedy, but still comedy for kids. Joker is taxi driver but goofier and tailored to resonate with young gen z audience and casual moviegoers. I enjoyed it too as I can enjoy most films, but it has no artistic merit in terms of writing. Acting is fantastic though.
1 Like
Writing is in a film anyway less important than filming …
You are not wrong about Deadpool, but I still don’t agree with anything you think about the Joker films. Apart from the acting.
1 Like
To each their own 
This evening: Terrifier 3 (Leone, 2024)
We take up with Art the Clown (the gleeful David Howard Thornton) more-or-less exactly where we left him in Terrifier 2, in two places at once; his headless corpse sprawled at the bottom of the “Terrifier” haunted house attraction, his head being “birthed” in an asylum by the possessed Victoria (Samantha Scaffidi, channeling the Evil Dead franchise for all she’s worth). Nnnnice. The headless corpse reanimates, finds its way to the asylum, retrieves its head - killing cops, nurses and guards along the way - and then the newly reconstituted Art and the still-possessed Victoria slope off to an abandoned house where they enter a shared state of macabre suspended animation. Why? I don’t know. But 5 years pass.
It’s Christmas. Sienna (Lauren LeVera), our angel warrior heroine from the previous movie, has just returned to the real world from an extended stay in hospital following the events of Terrifier 2. She still has survivor’s guilt and she still sees hallucinations of her friends who were murdered by Art, but she’s ready to at least try for a semblance of a normal life, and moves in with her aunt, uncle and little cousin Gabbie (newcomer Antonella Rise, all wide-eyes and toothy grins). Sienna’s brother Jonathan (Elliott Fullam, not really given enough to do), another survivor of the previous film, is in college and wants to just try to forget everything, despite his roommate’s girlfriend’s fan-girl insistence that he talk about his trauma on her True Crime podcast. Even with Art apparently gone, ghouls of a different kind still follow Sienna and Jonathan everywhere.
Anyway, a demolition crew awaken Art and Victoria from their inexplicable slumber, and we’re off again, with the devilish duo hellbent on slaughtering their way back to Sienna whom they intend to spread across the state like liver paté. Will they turn her into sausage meat, or will she send them back to whatever Hell they spawned from, yet again?
Terrifier 3, the latest entry in Damien Leone’s barely-plotted splatterfest franchise, is a Halloween movie, a Christmas movie and an absolute hoot. Yes, it’s incredibly gory - more so than any movie I’ve ever seen (well it’s a toss-up 'twixt this one and its predecessor; and, I suppose, its predecessor:s predecessor) - but, rather than being related stylistically to the genuinely disturbing “torture porn” or “gorenography” films which came out of France, Korea and Japan in the noughties and which carried an impossible grim tone from start to finish, the Terroriser movies are really more closely related to the wild and wacky splatter efforts of Sam Raimi and, after him, Peter Jackson. It’s so gory, presented with such psychotic joy, that it stops being horrifying and becomes… well, kind-of fun.
Limbs fly everywhere. Blood pours by the gallon. Skulls are smashed to pulpy bits. Bodies are hacked so forcefully, so graphically and for so long that they cease being bodies in any recognisable sense and start to simply resemble the contents of a butcher’s shop window. And it all comes courtesy of the demonic Art the Clown, played with such perverse zeal by the outstanding David Howard Thornton that it’s almost charming. Where Freddy Krueger and Pennywise the Clown often went about their satanic tasks with an artificial glee intended to further torment their victims, Art is performative even when nobody is watching him. He’s genuinely having an absolute blast. Subsequently, so are we. Joy is contagious, you know.
Look, I’ll be honest: I’m really not that much into movies that are fundamentally gory for gore’s sake. I’m not. It does nothing for me. I want my scares to work on a more elegant, cerebral level. Especially the supernatural ones. But Terrifier 3 hits the spot for me because, whilst it exists purely to be as stupidly graphic as possible in spite of the arcing story Mr. Leone wants to drape around it (and the admittedly largely likeable characters therein), it does so with such heady aplomb that I just want to grin right along with Art; to stand alongside him, to cheer, to applaud, to dance with him, maybe even to sing… Yes, Terrifier 3 manages against all odds to reach the feels that Joker: Folie à Deux wishes it did, with a fraction of the budget and a bin bag full of rusty tools. And I quite liked Joker: Folie à Deux in the end.
So, I heartily recommend Terrifier 3, yes? Well, I do if you can handle the grue. Be clearly warned that this movie makes the entire Friday the 13th, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream franchises - combined - look like The Bill. If you can’t do gore under any circumstances then don’t ever watch this movie or any of its forebears. But if you can handle watching a demonic clown repeatedly smashing people for two hours with hammers, picks, knives and chainsaws until they look like KFC Bargain Buckets, then nobody does so with quite as much beaming guile as Art the Clown. He’s quite an artist.
(You should probably also know that Terrifier 3 is a proper sequel to Terrifier 2. Much of the early set-up will be almost completely nonsensical if you go in without prior knowledge of that equally blood-soaked movie.)
1 Like
I went to see The Substance. I seldom go to the movies these days, but this one was supposed to be a gory Cronenberg-esque body-horror movie that I thought could be fun to see in a cinema. Unfortunately I just found it silly and boring.
Saw it as well, two weeks ago. Wouldn’t call it boring. Half the audience left out of disgust, the rest had a great time, people went nuts
1 Like
I thought she herself would become a younger version, and then something went wrong.
Not that she would become a completely different person.
The film was not at all scary to me, just silly and over the top, especially the ending of course.